"I could not be funded by a man" - Really?

[aokii]

I have noticed that this line, " I could not be funded by a man" is often trotted out on here. Frequently, it is directed at SAHMs.

I take issue with this for two reasons -

1. Unless you are in the type of marriage where you have totally separate funds, you are inevitably being "funded by a man" to a greater or lesser extent anyway - particularly if you are the lower earner or you work part-time.

2. Unlike in families where there are two working parents, a family with a SAHM is not going to be paying childcare costs. So although the SAHM is obviously not doing paid work, her role is still a direct and significant saving.

No doubt people will come on now and talk about "financial vulnerability," re- SAHMs and this is a fair point. However, it is far from a given that SAHMs are any more financially vulnerable than the next woman. Nobody should ever just assume this.

I'm aware that there will be many women who earn more than their husbands and have separate finances. There will be couples who both work flexibly around each other and will argue a SAHP would not be a saving for them as they don't need to use childcare anyway, etc etc. But I less interested in personal anecdotes. I'm talking more generally about the vast majority of families with parents who both work and have shared finances. Could they honestly say they could maintain the same lifestyle without their DH's income coming into the household? If "no," then they are at least part-funded by a man surely?

AIBU to say that before tossing out the line, "I could not be funded by a man," people on here should look at themselves.

Anyone that remotely thinks like this is a waste of oxygen!!!!

You carry on being a kick arse well paid woman! I have 3 daughters and I want them to have female role models like you. You're not ugly. I can safely say that without having a clue what you look like.

This thread is going round in circles.

Women should earn some money so they are not vulnerable (I agree with this).

No, ALL women should earn just as much as their OH and do exactly the same amount of childcare. This is what all women want, it’s men who are stopping them.

No, I like being a SAHM. I like being with the DC.

Yes, all women are biologically programmed to be with their DC. I sacrificed an amazing career for my DC.

Some of us have to work and it’s women like you who make men think we should all be at home. I struggle to juggle work and home so things are hard enough.

No it’s women like YOU who keep taking time off work who make men think we should all be at home.

Why doesn’t the man take time off? Doesn’t he want to rear his DC?

Yeah, lots of men would like to spend more time with their DC. Women should be the main earners and let the man take the parental leave.

etc etc

ie women have different brains and opinions and there is no one-size answer

You manage to work 8-6 5 days a week and spend most of the day with your 2 year old?
Good for you if that works for you.
It wouldn’t be enough for many women but we’re all different.

Anyway, good chat. Got stuff to do.

@Thereisnolight

I never said I worked 8-6

Funny how most women seem to cope fine with their kids going to preschool and school eh?

You're still not really answering why your oh being OK with not being with his kids

You don't, because you were surprised it happened to thepeopleversuswork, surprised that it was the women who recognised the issue, asked her what kind of place she works at as if this isn't widespread, and then asked her why she puts up with it.

As for this:

The reason I told you about my husband was because you specifically asked me if he ever put up with shit at work, so I was trying to give you an honest answer.

No, I didn't ask if he had ever put up with shit at work. Do you think I couldn't guess the answer? Do you think some people never have shit at work?

You asked why thepeopleversuswork puts up with this brand of sexist shit at work. I then asked if you'd expect your husband to put up with it, if the alternative meant losing your lifestyle. The point was that you can totally see why your husband put up with working with a prick, but you couldn't see why women would put up with sexist, childcare-related shit. And also that your husband would never have to put up with the sexist shit.

Once again, total myopia.

Then you don’t work full time.

Unless you work unsocial hours but not all careers do this.

@Thereisnolight How odd you think you know more about my working hours than I do.

I do work full time.

I see loads of my kids. I 'rear' them along with their dad.

Is there a magic number of hours you have to see them for for it to count?

Irrelevant but I wish some of y’all making the point that sometimes sole earners need to put up with stuff as we need money, had been about on one of the three thousand occasions where I’ve been told that I’m a stupid martyr for staying in a job where I’m taken advantage of because I don’t have caring responsibilities. Apparently this defence of necessity that’s being rolled out only applies if you’re a mum!

By not teaching girls they should be the default parent or to accept that their male ohs career is always more important than theirs

I don't think this is what happens in most cases. It's usually a financial decision driven by the man being the higher earner.

If we stopped marrying men older than us (who will often have years more career experience behind them) this would likely close the gap. Also need to choose the high earning career paths like engineering over teaching and nonsense like gender studies.

It’s good that your work/home balance is right for you.
You’ve made your choice and ideally everyone else would have the ability to make theirs.

@TokidokiBarbie By not teaching girls they should be the default parent or to accept that their male ohs career is always more important than theirs

This in spades ^.

Even though I earned more than my first (D)H he assumed that I would give my career up to have children. I refused and said we should both reduce our hours. He disagreed so we never had any.

If we stopped marrying men older than us (who will often have years more career experience behind them) this would likely close the gap. Also need to choose the high earning career paths like engineering over teaching and nonsense like gender studies.

Agree 100%

My second husband is much younger than me and we have a better family dynamic.

@Thereisnolight

Yeah that doesn't answer the question

You were very adamant that you can't spend a lot of time with your kids or 'rear' them if you work full time.

But you cant answer how long you have to spend with them for it to count

Funnily enough, no one ever answers that question

The average relationship age gap in the UK is around 1 to 3 years

I dont think it has much impact.

And as already discussed even when women do choose higher earning careers, it's still more likely to be them who go part time or quit

So yeah. My comment about teaching girls not to put their ohs career above theirs stands.

Because there’s no one answer.
I prefer to work party time and am lucky enough to be able to.
Others prefer (or need) full-time, others prefer (or need) SAHM.
Every woman is different. We’re not all the same.
You sound so defensive. If what you’re doing is right for you, then enjoy it. And let other women do what’s right for them, if they’re fortunate enough to have the choice.

@Thereisnolight

I'm not defensive at all. I know I've made the right choice, 100 %. Wouldn't have done anything differently

There isn't a right answer. Some choices are less valid than others

But that's not what people say on these threads

They're very definite (like you were) that mums (never dads) can't spend time with or raise kids if they work full time.

But then they go all non committal when you try to dig down into what that actually earns or why it matter

Probably because then they'd need to admit they aren't hitting the magic number either.

Funded by a man- bring it on!

Even though I earned more than my first (D)H he assumed that I would give my career up to have children. I refused and said we should both reduce our hours. He disagreed so we never had any.

I agree with this @TheMoonisaBalloon but I think this may not be the norm. You can teach girls all you want that they don't have to be the default carer, but in reality many more women want babies more than men do (and are more limited by age), and so there'll always be women that settle for a man in order to get them. I don't think that you'll ever change that.

I'm not defensive at all. I know I've made the right choice, 100 %. Wouldn't have done anything differently

There isn't a right answer. Some choices are less valid than others

Your clearly privileged, you have what appears to be the ideal family situation and if anything has threatened that you've been able to overcome it.

My husband and I have made the best choices for us from the options available to us at the time. It's not what we would have planned in an ideal world but fortunately for us it's worked out better than we could have hoped for. I don't think our choices are any less valid.

@KateColumbo

Privileged?

Yeah sure, a bit

But it also didn't just happen by chance

Best choices available is always going to be subjective

Just an old fashioned girl you know!

To Topgub - you want to know what the 'right number of hours is to raise your dc'? Everyone knows that number when it works - or no longer does. Two parents working FT might work well for a long time, but then something, and usually a lot at the sane time, happens, like a dc becoming ill. My oldest dc had a critical accident, series of life saving ops, and for months couldn't write, eat, go to the loo. At the same time younger dc started to struggle with school. GPs becoming old and frail and need help. Other dc diagnosed with ASD, so constantly changing Au Pairs/babysitters not an option. When life changes, the hours a dc needs to be raised change. Some people might be able to get more help from grandparents/babysitters, but then some people might not have someone who can help, or the dc have a real problem accepting strangers, or it is unaffordable so for everyone's sanity it might be best, if affordable, for 1 parent to reduce working hours or stop working. It's about what works for each family, and even within each family, needs change. So any option is valid only as long as they work.

@rainbowmilk but in reality many more women want babies more than men do (and are more limited by age), and so there'll always be women that settle for a man in order to get them. I don't think that you'll ever change that.

You make a good point.

That could well explain why we get so many posts on M/N from mums who have chosen to breed with a lazy entitled f*wit and are now reaping the consequences.

They would be better off going for AID, at least they would know what the future held and be better prepared.

Privileged?

Yeah sure, a bit

I'd say a lot going by what you've posted. For a start many families could afford to take the financial hit of both parents going part time while the children are small.

But it also didn't just happen by chance
We'd made plans too, as the saying goes even the best laid plans can go astray. Relying on each other can be risky too.

Best choices available is always going to be subjective
I don't think making the choice that keeps the roof over your head and food on the table can really be the wrong choice.